Appeal 6003817

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (or permission in principle stage) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle and the second (‘technical details consent’) stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these 2 stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted15. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent [name] application if permission in principle is granted. I have determined the appeal accordingly.

In terms of the amount of development, the application form indicated that permission in principle is sought for up to four self-build dwellings and I have considered the appeal on that basis.

A new emerging local plan for the whole of [name] was published in January 2026 and has recently undergone consultation. The local plan is still in the early stages of preparation, whilst its policies are a material consideration, I afford them limited weight at this stage.

The main issue is whether the site is suitable for residential development, having regard to its location, proposed land use and amount. 15 [name]: 012 [name]: 58-[phone]

The strategy for new housing in the Council area is set out in Policy S1 of the [name] Local Plan (Part 1) 2014 (Part 1 Plan), and Policies SS1, LH1, LH3 and LH5 of the [name] 2 Local Plan 2011-2029 (Part 2 Plan). These seek to direct new housing towards existing urban centres and defined rural settlements with existing facilities and services. The policies resist residential development outside of defined settlements in the open countryside, other than for specific reasons.

The appeal site comprises land to the rear of [address], the first property of a line of detached houses along a rural lane leading into the village of Gayton. The approach to the site and village is up a gentle incline, with the village sat on a plateau over the surrounding open landscape. The appeal site relates partly to the rear garden space of No 12, and partly to what could reasonably be described as paddock land beyond. It is undisputed that the appeal site is part within and part outside of the settlement confines of Gayton.

The character of this section of Gayton is distinctly linear in form, with detached properties fronting [address], but otherwise surrounded by open countryside. The linear form of the settlement is defined by simple repeat access points of individual properties on generous plots fronting the road. On the approach from the east the village is largely screened by trees within plots but otherwise sat within an open landscape. In this context little of the built form is currently visible.

As a single dwelling fronting the road, the host property currently makes a positive contribution to the character of this part of the settlement. The large rear garden of the appeal site extends beyond the settlement confines and along with the paddock beyond is surrounded by hedging. Together they contribute to the open countryside. The current absence of development within this space therefore maintains the prevailing linear form of this part of the settlement.

The submitted layout plan illustrates four detached houses to the rear of the host house. Of these it would only be possible to construct the entirety of one house within the settlement confines. The remaining three would entirely, or partly, be outside of the village confines. I am aware that this layout is only indicative, that the appellant is not tied to that scheme, and that it is not a technical requirement for submission. I also acknowledge that any number of alternative schemes may come forward in the future. Be that as it may, it is the only evidence before me of how up to four dwellings could realistically be achieved at this site. Therefore, the greater portion of the site would, in all likelihood, fall outside of the village confines, substantially extending built form into the open countryside.

The proposal would not meet any of the exceptions set out in Policy SS1 and LH5 which would allow for up to one self-build plot beyond the settlement confines. As discussed in greater detail below, neither would it protect the distinctive character of the rural area as required by the South Northamptonshire Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2021) ([name]).

In making my decision, I have had regard to the [name]. Whilst parts of the site outside the confines clearly abut the settlement envelope, this does not automatically constitute it ‘immediately adjoining’ it. That test is set out in the SPD and requires the site to not only have a clear physical connection, but also a relatable connection with the settlement confines. Being attached is therefore not enough, and whilst this site is located to the rear of an existing house, it is neither a natural nor a contextually appropriate extension to this part of Gayton. Instead, it extends south, at odds with the established pattern of development, including that directly fronting [address]. It would therefore constitute a significant protrusion into the open countryside.

My attention has been drawn to the case of Corbett v Cornwall County Council (2022 WL 02967669 (2022)). Whilst full details of this case are not before me in the evidence, I note that it found that a site immediately adjoining the confines of a settlement does not need to be contiguous, but instead must be ‘very near’. This does not divert away from the weight I give to the SPD that requires adjacent locations to be contextually appropriate.

I am also mindful that the appeal development constitutes backland development. I have had regard to Policy GS4 of the Part 2 Plan which only permits backland development when it does not adversely affect the character of that part of the settlement. The proposed houses would be highly visible in open views towards the site on the approach into the village along [address] on this raised plateau. Their divorced location to the rear of [address] would appear incongruous with the pattern of development being contextually disjointed.

On my site visit, and as highlighted by the appellant, I saw the entrance to ‘The HIB’, a backland development of a single house behind a group of buildings closer to the village core. Other than limited glimpses from the churchyard, it was difficult to see this house from any public vantage point. Also, this house is nestled into a corner of the village, abutting two boundaries, thereby clustering with other built form. Therefore, its relationship to the village and its contextual position are in marked contrast with the appeal proposal. Ultimately, the existence of this house has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

The appellant has set out that the proposed development would benefit from a number of local services within Gayton. However, it is defined as a small village and whilst it is in close proximity to Northampton, it is still heavily reliant on the car with only limited services, including a primary school, village hall and public house. Considering the limitations of the village and the rural location as a whole, the appeal site does not constitute a sustainable location for development.

Overall, I conclude that the appeal site would not be suitable for residential development due to its location and land use. The proposed development would conflict with [name], S1 and R1 of the Part 1 Plan and Policies SS1, SS2, LH1, LH5 and GS4 of the Part 2 Plan, which together and amongst other things, seek to direct development in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and set out the circumstances in which residential development is permitted in the countryside.

The Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended) (SB&CB Act) requires local authorities to keep a register of self-build (SBCH) demand. It establishes a duty on local authorities to grant planning permission in respect of enough serviced plots of land to meet the demand for SBCH arising in each base period. The Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 (LU&R Act) further clarifies that unmet demand is to be rolled over until met.

As a ‘small village’, Gayton’s contribution towards meeting the Council’s self-build demand is set out in Policy LH5 of the Part 2 Plan. It allows for proposals of up to one self-build plot beyond the settlement confines. This limit allows for a proportional amount of self-build homes to be delivered in small settlements such as Gayton in meeting the Council wide demand.

I note that some recent appeal decisions have found that insufficient permissions have been given to meet demand for self-build plots within the former [name] area in accordance with the statutory duty. Whilst taking into consideration the requirements of the SB&CB Act, the proposal would add four additional dwellings to the supply of self-build accommodation. Although important, the proposal would only make a very modest contribution in addressing the Council’s shortfall in self-build provision.

Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would be secured as SBCH for the purposes of the Act. The appellant suggests this could be secured by legal agreement, but no [name] has been provided with the appeal and the PPG is clear that conditions cannot be attached to a grant of permission in principle. Irrespective of how this might be secured, this matter carries moderate weight in favour of the scheme.

My attention is drawn to a number of appeals, these include appeal decision APP/Y2620/W/25/3368039. Here the provision of self-build housing carried substantial weight despite an identified conflict with the adopted spatial strategy. The view of that Inspector was based on the evidence in that case and the failure to meet the figures of the self build duty. I do not have part 1 of the register before me and, in any case, the demand in [name] cannot be directly compared with the figures in [name].

Appeal decision APP/W2845/W/25/3363035, [address], is within [name]. I note in that case that the Inspectors raised doubt as to whether all the planning permissions referred to would be delivered as SBCH. However, as with that case I find that the location of the proposal would conflict with the Council’s development strategy for the location of new housing.

I note that there is no dispute in respect of flood risk and access. However, the acceptability of these matters does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

I have found harm in respect of the Council’s development strategy for the location of new housing which I give significant weight. I also find harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area, to which I give significant weight. As a result of this harm, I have found conflict with several development plan policies and, in my assessment, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole.

The evidence before me demonstrates that the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five year supply of housing. Therefore, National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) Paragraph 11(d) is engaged. This requires that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

There are a variety of benefits to the scheme, including the provision of up to four new, self-build dwellings in the district, together with associated economic benefits during the period of construction and once occupied. However, and irrespective of the precise five year supply of housing, these benefits would inevitably be modest by reason of the scale of the development, attracting moderate weight.

Overall, the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh these benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed.